9 ms·

Diablo is the original "anti-souls" game. The slot machine mechanics, the lacking of significant strategic elements and sense of hollow progression have always

Diablo is the original "anti-souls" game. The slot machine mechanics, the lacking of significant strategic elements and sense of hollow progression have always been key factors for my dissatisfaction with it. That said, the beautiful / dreadful / horror vibe and simplicity of the first game to this day regularly pull me in – only to ultimately dissatisfy me greatly. Each time. To me there is just "no there there" - and that's probably the point? So I agree on many fronts with this article. Diablo could have been so much more but they turned it into a highly engineered form of drug that can potentially destroy you, with little to nothing to gain for it. Nicotine? For sure it's more gambling than gaming - again to me mostly timeless yet inherently toxic coating - down to the systems level. So in a way, it's the original "mobile game", the ultimate computer based life waster. So depending on the person and with the right .mpq file in hand this could either mean getting addicted to or maybe getting off of "cigarettes" completely: https://github.com/diasurgical/devilutionX/blob/master/docs/installing.md https://github.com/diasurgical/devilutionX/blob/master/docs/... (Devilution/X is amazing and maybe more interesting than playing the game itself, complete clean-room reverse engineered version of Diablo). Edit disclaimer: local / in-sync multiplayer is (probably?) not as life wasting

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
> the lacking of significant strategic elements Planning for your gear and doing sims / optimizing are strategic elements, though potentially a meta-strategy?
- WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
  That was a thing in Diablo 2 and that's when the IP peaked, this got lost with Diablo 3 and, i believe even more so with Diablo 4.. all the builds are all discovered and in front of you, there is no tinkering with incredible skill interaction possible like we used to do in Diablo 2 It's kinda similar to how Bethesda manages the Elder Scrolls IP, ~ a decade between titles and they casualize(? is it a word)/simplify mechanics that made them popular, they became a shadow of themselves, as a result their titles, while successful, doesn't give the same satisfaction, and I don't think it's due to nostalgia, there are specific design decisions that emphasis with my point, lvl-scaling and simplified damage/defense stats in D4 for example The story and world building are both nailed, hence the commercial success, but the gameplay... what a let down.. exactly like Oblivion -> Skyrim transition I don't think the game would have been a success if "Diablo" wasn't attached to the name, I'm pretty sure it sold less than Diablo 3 Hopefully they evolve the genre/IP with Diablo 5, perhaps focus as a single player game and explore new gameplay mechanics This "game as a service" ruins this IP Hopefully Bethesda don't fall into the same trap and actually move the IP forward, similar to how Fromsoftware evolved their Souls like genre Dark Souls -> Elden Ring, that's what I expect from both Blizzard / Bethesda, they both play too safe and ends up becoming the shadow of their past..
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    > casualize(? is it a word)/simplify mechanics 'streamline the fun out of'
    - WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
      Yeah that sounds like a better word, thanks
  - jnovek 3y ago
    > all the builds are all discovered Isn't that more a feature of the community than the game itself, though? You're always free to experiment and roll your own builds. That's what I'm doing with Diablo 4 and I'm having a blast. I don't care if I push the highest nightmare dungeon or even reach max level. I just want to see what I can do with a build that I come up with out of my own head.
    - WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
      I think that's more of a side effect of them wanting it to be a "game as a service", they need everything to be streamlined and balanced.. wich removes a lot of the fun.. I wish they'd have made D4 a proper single player game instead of an MMO, and let your community mod your game Look at D2 and the sheer amount of mods.. same for Warcraft 3..
      - foobazgt 3y ago
        I can see glimpses of what they were going for with online multiplayer in D4. There's some fun there, but I think it's currently a net negative. It forces them to balance tightly, but I don't need D4 to be perfectly balanced - just fun. Some of the best games I've ever played have had horribly broken balance - final fantasy 6 (3) and final fantasy tactics just to name two off the top of my head.
        tstrimple 3y ago
- butlike 3y ago
  I employee you to try a "no-town" run. It works in Diablo I and II. Essentially once you spawn in, you have to leave and never return which opens up interesting gameplay. Waypoints? They're essentially useless. You can't return to town and why would you warp back to a cleared area? Why go to the Den of Evil? You can't get the skill point from Akara anyways... Town portals become useless, however, identify scrolls become one of the most valuable item. Do you hold onto the unid'd gloves that take up 4 inventory spots or drop it? Do you equip the javelin that has 4 durability, or do you save it for the boss? Do you remember where your cache of health pots were? It's really hard and really fun. If you've tapped the Diablo reservoir and looking for something new, I'd try it
ecshafer 3y ago
There is a lot of strategy in Diablo 1. Unlike Diablo 2, you are much less able to just wade into hordes of monsters. Your health doesn't restore, you have less mana, you have fewer abilities and they don't just upgrade. In Diablo 2, some characters get abilities that can clear a whole pack of monsters by level 6 or 12, which you get to relatively quick. Diablo 1 you are much weaker. If theres a pack of monsters, knowing where to position yourself to filter them, or what scrolls to use and when to use them, and rationing your potions is more important. Its closer to traditional roguelikes.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  There is a lot of strategy in Diablo 1. Unlike Diablo 2, you are much less able to just wade into hordes of monsters. Sure, you camped at doorways and killed monsters as they pathed in front of you individually. Though, I'm not sure I'd classify that as "a lot of strategy".
- musha68k 3y ago
  True, D1 involves strategy and resembles traditional roguelikes, yet its tactical breadth feels limited.. So in absolute comparison to other roguelikes it's all mere coating, even on the tactics / strategy side - it tends to be more about positioning and resource management. This is a highly subjective take of course and its appeal varies player by player.. I'd be in full agreement that Diablo 1 is the "most worthwhile" of the Diablo games and I do have a love / hate / on / off relationship with it (really glad that I'm not a smoker).
carlisle_ 3y ago
This is a strange post to me. You can immediately see that you value soulslike as a superior genre, yet to me I see those games are just as grindy. Die to a boss a million times to learn the timings -> finally you beat it. Not that much different than ARPGs where you kill lots of stuff and die infrequently. It's just two sides of the same coin. Really these posts that call one kind of game time wasting or drug-like but not another just miss the brutal irony.
- thefz 3y ago
  > You can immediately see that you value soulslike as a superior genre, yet to me I see those games are just as grindy. Die to a boss a million times to learn the timings -> finally you beat it. Elden ring is so grindy that it's almost worse than any ARPG. And the game is full with artificially deadly things that should not be there, just to keep up its own meme "lol game hard, player dead". It's comically bad in many aspects.
- themagician 3y ago
  You can find a balance. Diablo 3 tried. You had a game that you could make significantly hard, and because respecs were essentially unlimited you could reroll your character for any particular fight that was too hard to try and find a new way to beat it. I enjoyed that part.
- shultays 3y ago
  I guess the difference is grinding against a challenge and grinding against RNG
  - aflag 3y ago
    How is that material in any way?
    - dividedbyzero 3y ago
      It feels very different and appeals to different crowds. I hate grinding against a challenge because I have to do a lot of that in real life, whereas blazing through the hell levels with my Diablo 1 Sorcerer was more like a relaxing stroll than much of a grind, with the occasional little reward from the RNG. Other people get a kick out of dying 83 times in front of the same boss, but that has never been me.
themagician 3y ago
I've always loved this series. The problem, as I see it, is that the focus is always on tweaking the "endgame." I just find this to be silly. Once you get to the endgame it's pointless, and people basically blaze through the base game on purpose. And once you get there it really is no more than a slot machine that caters to people with serious gambling addictions. You run the same dungeons over and over again, sometimes thousands or even tens of thousands of times, all for an item with slightly different numbers. In Diablo 1 and 2 the item often doesn't even look different. But I've always found the base game to be excellent. Fun, exciting, and a blast with 4 people. I feel like, particularly with the new Diablo 4 they could make the leveling curve on the base game last MUCH, MUCH longer and it would actually be far more enjoyable for far more people. It would piss off the endgame crowd though, because all they want to do is get to max level as fast as possible so they can start farming.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > I feel like, particularly with the new Diablo 4 they could make the leveling curve on the base game last MUCH, MUCH longer and it would actually be far more enjoyable for far more people. It would piss off the endgame crowd though, because all they want to do is get to max level as fast as possible so they can start farming. Didn’t all of this literally just happen?
  - themagician 3y ago
    Sort of, but not really. The real grind kicks in around level 50… so again, after you've already beat the game. I don't really care about the "endgame". I think this game would be much more fun if it was a bit more like am MMO, where you are maybe looking for a group to do a dungeon. Below 50 is, IMO, the best part of the game, especially because respecs are essentially unlimited.
- butlike 3y ago
  I agree that's what it's evolved into for the most part, but also consider the point of Diablo is to "defeat Diablo." Simple as that. The endgame of min/maxing came because people continued to play after the main objective was done.
ahartmetz 3y ago
I feel the same way about Diablo 1. I really like the art style and ambiance (the last Blizzard game for which that is true for me), but the gameplay is basically click on them until they're dead.
sgtnoodle 3y ago
Sounds hellish to me.
atum47 3y ago
I made a post the other day about diablo being a clicker game https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36328358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36328358
- moribvndvs 3y ago
  No joke, I just discovered Cookie Clicker a couple of weeks ago (sorry, I guess I’ve been under a rock) and it struck me that CC is a greatly distilled and simplified version of Diablo and pretty much all ARPGs. Perform some action to get resources to get a thing that will let you collect more resources that will let you get a better thing etc. A dopamine factory. The differences are just implementation details and art/style/setting.
  - anthk 3y ago
    That's why I prefer roguelikes. Hoarding and grinding won't save you. Lateral thinking, lots of times.
  - Root_Denied 3y ago
    Universal Paperclips is another game like this, although one with more of a clear "ending" than something like CC or Diablo.
spywaregorilla 3y ago
i really feel the need to object to calling some grindy trash as "anti souls" as if dark souls is the archetypal game that is not shallow. I like dark souls (and love sekiro, and shrug at elden ring). But there's a lot of games out there with depth. And frankly, a lot of people get through dark souls with luck and jank. Especially elden ring with its summons. That you can beat the game with sheer grit and dodges is a different thing.
DarkNova6 3y ago
I mostly agree. As a small-scale game-designer I sometimes ask myself: how I could create a Diablo given the right budget? But the problem is that you cannot recreate the magic of Diablo (2). There is nothing inherently magic about Diablo which sets it apart. It's all about the impeccable implementation of a simple idea. A perfect storm. I think a combination of Diablo and Souls-like would be a fascinating endeavour. You could take the core souls-gameplay, scale up the enemy count and turn it into an isometric game. High Stakes, high reward. Or you take a Souls-game and just make it a bit more casual/accessible. On top, Blizzard has the talent and manpower to create breathtaking environments that could shine even more in third-person. Blizzard should go back to formula. Because their original recipe is still stuck in the 90s.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
proc0 3y ago
The beauty of Diablo is the RNG dungeons and overall feeling of character progression. Souls games are effectively a static level layout with enemies respawning in the exact same place, however it gives the feeling of overcoming hard challenges (more or less by design). So yes it is "anti-souls" but it's because it attempts to deliver a unique experience with every playthrough, although I agree that this has been lost in the ARPG genre in favor of formulaic quests and slot machine mechanics since Diablo 3.
xsmasher 3y ago
Thank you! I always felt that Diablo was a step backward in computer RPGs, and it never grabbed me the way that Baldur's Gate did; even though the vibe is great as you noted. The randomized dungeons just feel like a treadmill of same art and room layouts, no characters to talk to or memorable events. Somehow I WAS snared by "Book of Demons," which looks a lot like a diablo clone but with some card mechanics and a unique feature when you can choose the length of a dungeon (specify a number of minutes) to tailor the session length to the time you have. https://store.steampowered.com/app/449960/Book_of_Demons/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/449960/Book_of_Demons/
Name_Chawps 3y ago
The gameplay was fun to me when I was literally 5 years old and playing my first ever computer game. I can't understand how an adult would find the Diablo games fun. The atmosphere and art and whatnot are great, though.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

> the lacking of significant strategic elements Planning for your gear and doing sims / optimizing are strategic elements, though potentially a meta-strategy?

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
That was a thing in Diablo 2 and that's when the IP peaked, this got lost with Diablo 3 and, i believe even more so with Diablo 4.. all the builds are all discovered and in front of you, there is no tinkering with incredible skill interaction possible like we used to do in Diablo 2 It's kinda similar to how Bethesda manages the Elder Scrolls IP, ~ a decade between titles and they casualize(? is it a word)/simplify mechanics that made them popular, they became a shadow of themselves, as a result their titles, while successful, doesn't give the same satisfaction, and I don't think it's due to nostalgia, there are specific design decisions that emphasis with my point, lvl-scaling and simplified damage/defense stats in D4 for example The story and world building are both nailed, hence the commercial success, but the gameplay... what a let down.. exactly like Oblivion -> Skyrim transition I don't think the game would have been a success if "Diablo" wasn't attached to the name, I'm pretty sure it sold less than Diablo 3 Hopefully they evolve the genre/IP with Diablo 5, perhaps focus as a single player game and explore new gameplay mechanics This "game as a service" ruins this IP Hopefully Bethesda don't fall into the same trap and actually move the IP forward, similar to how Fromsoftware evolved their Souls like genre Dark Souls -> Elden Ring, that's what I expect from both Blizzard / Bethesda, they both play too safe and ends up becoming the shadow of their past..
- nullindividual 3y ago
  > casualize(? is it a word)/simplify mechanics 'streamline the fun out of'
  - WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
    Yeah that sounds like a better word, thanks
- jnovek 3y ago
  > all the builds are all discovered Isn't that more a feature of the community than the game itself, though? You're always free to experiment and roll your own builds. That's what I'm doing with Diablo 4 and I'm having a blast. I don't care if I push the highest nightmare dungeon or even reach max level. I just want to see what I can do with a build that I come up with out of my own head.
  - WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
    I think that's more of a side effect of them wanting it to be a "game as a service", they need everything to be streamlined and balanced.. wich removes a lot of the fun.. I wish they'd have made D4 a proper single player game instead of an MMO, and let your community mod your game Look at D2 and the sheer amount of mods.. same for Warcraft 3..
    - foobazgt 3y ago
      I can see glimpses of what they were going for with online multiplayer in D4. There's some fun there, but I think it's currently a net negative. It forces them to balance tightly, but I don't need D4 to be perfectly balanced - just fun. Some of the best games I've ever played have had horribly broken balance - final fantasy 6 (3) and final fantasy tactics just to name two off the top of my head.
      - tstrimple 3y ago
butlike 3y ago
I employee you to try a "no-town" run. It works in Diablo I and II. Essentially once you spawn in, you have to leave and never return which opens up interesting gameplay. Waypoints? They're essentially useless. You can't return to town and why would you warp back to a cleared area? Why go to the Den of Evil? You can't get the skill point from Akara anyways... Town portals become useless, however, identify scrolls become one of the most valuable item. Do you hold onto the unid'd gloves that take up 4 inventory spots or drop it? Do you equip the javelin that has 4 durability, or do you save it for the boss? Do you remember where your cache of health pots were? It's really hard and really fun. If you've tapped the Diablo reservoir and looking for something new, I'd try it

ecshafer 3y ago

There is a lot of strategy in Diablo 1. Unlike Diablo 2, you are much less able to just wade into hordes of monsters. Your health doesn't restore, you have less mana, you have fewer abilities and they don't just upgrade. In Diablo 2, some characters get abilities that can clear a whole pack of monsters by level 6 or 12, which you get to relatively quick. Diablo 1 you are much weaker. If theres a pack of monsters, knowing where to position yourself to filter them, or what scrolls to use and when to use them, and rationing your potions is more important. Its closer to traditional roguelikes.

Goronmon 3y ago
There is a lot of strategy in Diablo 1. Unlike Diablo 2, you are much less able to just wade into hordes of monsters. Sure, you camped at doorways and killed monsters as they pathed in front of you individually. Though, I'm not sure I'd classify that as "a lot of strategy".
musha68k 3y ago
True, D1 involves strategy and resembles traditional roguelikes, yet its tactical breadth feels limited.. So in absolute comparison to other roguelikes it's all mere coating, even on the tactics / strategy side - it tends to be more about positioning and resource management. This is a highly subjective take of course and its appeal varies player by player.. I'd be in full agreement that Diablo 1 is the "most worthwhile" of the Diablo games and I do have a love / hate / on / off relationship with it (really glad that I'm not a smoker).

carlisle_ 3y ago

This is a strange post to me. You can immediately see that you value soulslike as a superior genre, yet to me I see those games are just as grindy. Die to a boss a million times to learn the timings -> finally you beat it. Not that much different than ARPGs where you kill lots of stuff and die infrequently. It's just two sides of the same coin. Really these posts that call one kind of game time wasting or drug-like but not another just miss the brutal irony.

thefz 3y ago
> You can immediately see that you value soulslike as a superior genre, yet to me I see those games are just as grindy. Die to a boss a million times to learn the timings -> finally you beat it. Elden ring is so grindy that it's almost worse than any ARPG. And the game is full with artificially deadly things that should not be there, just to keep up its own meme "lol game hard, player dead". It's comically bad in many aspects.
themagician 3y ago
You can find a balance. Diablo 3 tried. You had a game that you could make significantly hard, and because respecs were essentially unlimited you could reroll your character for any particular fight that was too hard to try and find a new way to beat it. I enjoyed that part.
shultays 3y ago
I guess the difference is grinding against a challenge and grinding against RNG
- aflag 3y ago
  How is that material in any way?
  - dividedbyzero 3y ago
    It feels very different and appeals to different crowds. I hate grinding against a challenge because I have to do a lot of that in real life, whereas blazing through the hell levels with my Diablo 1 Sorcerer was more like a relaxing stroll than much of a grind, with the occasional little reward from the RNG. Other people get a kick out of dying 83 times in front of the same boss, but that has never been me.

themagician 3y ago

I've always loved this series. The problem, as I see it, is that the focus is always on tweaking the "endgame." I just find this to be silly. Once you get to the endgame it's pointless, and people basically blaze through the base game on purpose. And once you get there it really is no more than a slot machine that caters to people with serious gambling addictions. You run the same dungeons over and over again, sometimes thousands or even tens of thousands of times, all for an item with slightly different numbers. In Diablo 1 and 2 the item often doesn't even look different. But I've always found the base game to be excellent. Fun, exciting, and a blast with 4 people. I feel like, particularly with the new Diablo 4 they could make the leveling curve on the base game last MUCH, MUCH longer and it would actually be far more enjoyable for far more people. It would piss off the endgame crowd though, because all they want to do is get to max level as fast as possible so they can start farming.

nonethewiser 3y ago
> I feel like, particularly with the new Diablo 4 they could make the leveling curve on the base game last MUCH, MUCH longer and it would actually be far more enjoyable for far more people. It would piss off the endgame crowd though, because all they want to do is get to max level as fast as possible so they can start farming. Didn’t all of this literally just happen?
- themagician 3y ago
  Sort of, but not really. The real grind kicks in around level 50… so again, after you've already beat the game. I don't really care about the "endgame". I think this game would be much more fun if it was a bit more like am MMO, where you are maybe looking for a group to do a dungeon. Below 50 is, IMO, the best part of the game, especially because respecs are essentially unlimited.
butlike 3y ago
I agree that's what it's evolved into for the most part, but also consider the point of Diablo is to "defeat Diablo." Simple as that. The endgame of min/maxing came because people continued to play after the main objective was done.

ahartmetz 3y ago

I feel the same way about Diablo 1. I really like the art style and ambiance (the last Blizzard game for which that is true for me), but the gameplay is basically click on them until they're dead.

sgtnoodle 3y ago

Sounds hellish to me.

atum47 3y ago

I made a post the other day about diablo being a clicker game https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36328358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36328358

moribvndvs 3y ago
No joke, I just discovered Cookie Clicker a couple of weeks ago (sorry, I guess I’ve been under a rock) and it struck me that CC is a greatly distilled and simplified version of Diablo and pretty much all ARPGs. Perform some action to get resources to get a thing that will let you collect more resources that will let you get a better thing etc. A dopamine factory. The differences are just implementation details and art/style/setting.
- anthk 3y ago
  That's why I prefer roguelikes. Hoarding and grinding won't save you. Lateral thinking, lots of times.
- Root_Denied 3y ago
  Universal Paperclips is another game like this, although one with more of a clear "ending" than something like CC or Diablo.

spywaregorilla 3y ago

i really feel the need to object to calling some grindy trash as "anti souls" as if dark souls is the archetypal game that is not shallow. I like dark souls (and love sekiro, and shrug at elden ring). But there's a lot of games out there with depth. And frankly, a lot of people get through dark souls with luck and jank. Especially elden ring with its summons. That you can beat the game with sheer grit and dodges is a different thing.

DarkNova6 3y ago

I mostly agree. As a small-scale game-designer I sometimes ask myself: how I could create a Diablo given the right budget? But the problem is that you cannot recreate the magic of Diablo (2). There is nothing inherently magic about Diablo which sets it apart. It's all about the impeccable implementation of a simple idea. A perfect storm. I think a combination of Diablo and Souls-like would be a fascinating endeavour. You could take the core souls-gameplay, scale up the enemy count and turn it into an isometric game. High Stakes, high reward. Or you take a Souls-game and just make it a bit more casual/accessible. On top, Blizzard has the talent and manpower to create breathtaking environments that could shine even more in third-person. Blizzard should go back to formula. Because their original recipe is still stuck in the 90s.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

proc0 3y ago

The beauty of Diablo is the RNG dungeons and overall feeling of character progression. Souls games are effectively a static level layout with enemies respawning in the exact same place, however it gives the feeling of overcoming hard challenges (more or less by design). So yes it is "anti-souls" but it's because it attempts to deliver a unique experience with every playthrough, although I agree that this has been lost in the ARPG genre in favor of formulaic quests and slot machine mechanics since Diablo 3.

xsmasher 3y ago

Thank you! I always felt that Diablo was a step backward in computer RPGs, and it never grabbed me the way that Baldur's Gate did; even though the vibe is great as you noted. The randomized dungeons just feel like a treadmill of same art and room layouts, no characters to talk to or memorable events. Somehow I WAS snared by "Book of Demons," which looks a lot like a diablo clone but with some card mechanics and a unique feature when you can choose the length of a dungeon (specify a number of minutes) to tailor the session length to the time you have. https://store.steampowered.com/app/449960/Book_of_Demons/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/449960/Book_of_Demons/

Name_Chawps 3y ago

The gameplay was fun to me when I was literally 5 years old and playing my first ever computer game. I can't understand how an adult would find the Diablo games fun. The atmosphere and art and whatnot are great, though.